Senator Craig's decision creates problems for everyone
by Bryan Fischer
October 5, 2007
RenewAmerica.com (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/fischer/071005)
"The "hate crimes" issue is likely to surface again soon, as the senate is faced with an override vote on a presidential veto. "Hate crimes" laws — which really are "thought crimes" laws, since they punish perpetrators not for what they did but for what they were thinking when they did it — represent the single greatest danger to religious liberty and free speech in American history.
Once enacted into law, such laws are quickly used to punish anyone who publicly criticizes homosexual behavior, and turns conservative Christians by legal definition into homophobic bigots.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will also be dealt with by the senate in the near future. This bill will require Christian employers to hire open homosexuals and cross-dressers or face crippling lawsuits in federal court."
(emphasis mine - kjs)
===========
QUESTION: What's a 'closed homosexual'?
Karen
I think there's a big difference between anti-descrimination laws and hate crime laws, and I'm for one and against the other.
On one hand, as I get closer and closer to transitioning in the workplace, I think that descrimination due to sexual orientation or gender identity should be illegal. If it's illegal to discriminate against women in hiring, I think it should be illegal to discriminate against trans women or anyone else.
On the other hand, I don't like the idea of hate crime laws. If I'm attacked or (god forbid) raped, I'm not sure that the offenders should be treated differently than anyone that attacks or rapes a natal woman. I think the action, much more than the motivation, is important.
Just my two cents.
Quote from: AlwaysLauren on October 06, 2007, 05:55:23 PMIf I'm attacked or (god forbid) raped, I'm not sure that the offenders should be treated differently than anyone that attacks or rapes a natal woman. I think the action, much more than the motivation, is important.
The point of the Matthew Sheppard hate crimes law is to force the response to be identical to that of a natal person.
Brandon Teena was 'blown off' by the local cop because he was a trans-man. "Sherriff Laux was also criticized by other people after the murder for his lack of action and his attitude toward Brandon — at one point Laux referred to Brandon as "it."" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Teena#Aftermath)
Often, homosexual/transgender/gender-nonconforming individuals get LESS consideration than natal, normal folk.
The point of these laws is to force the equal treatment of both 'normal' folk and homosexual/transgender folk, by providing the remedy that if the local law enforcement doesn't or can't provide equal treatment, the federal government WILL step in and take over and provide the equal treatment.
Karen
Ya know... if we keep it up, it won't be long before churches will have to hire only gays and trans people. ;)
Perhaps then we will finally bring peace to the world.
Cindi
I understand where you're coming from Karen, but in my mind, this is "separate but equal" all over again. If someone is attacked the offender should be treated the same if the victim was a trans woman, a natal woman, a man, or anything else. I'm not asking to be treated differently, I just want to be treated the same.
Always,
Criminal acts against minorities are impossible to resolve in areas where law enforcement refuses to investigate and prosecute. If you look back just a few decades, you'll see that whites abused blacks in the south with impunity. The local police did nothing to resolve these crimes. It wasn't all that uncommon to see pictures of blacks hanging from a tree with white people standing around. Here there were the criminals having their photographs taken with their victims and the law stood by and watched. Had the federal government not stepped in, I imagine we would still see that same sort of thing going on.
So, we do need the ability to call in additional law enforcement for minority abuse cases. The hate crimes bill fills this requirement perfectly. Minorities don't need special treatment, but they certainly must deserve equal rights.... the right to have the perpetrators prosecuted.
The same lines of thinking can be applied here with employment rights. If we can't get equal rights under local law, we must seek federal protection. No, we aren't looking for special treatment... just equal treatment from those who still refuse to provide it.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Someone famous coined that phrase. It certainly comes home to me. I am a member of one of the most hated minorities in the world. Are you?
Cindi
I think we need to make sure law enforcement officials follow the rules on the books. If a cop is selectively enforcing a law, what's to stop him or her from selectively enforcing a hate crime law?
In my mind hate crime laws are special treatment. I'm fine with the federal government stepping in and making sure the laws are enforced, but the laws should apply the same to everyone, gay/lesbian/bi/trans/black/white/neon green with antlers.
I can't think of a law that came out of the civil rights struggle that treats blacks and whites differently. If anyone can think of one, please point it out, but in my mind the whole point is that the laws should treat everyone the same.
Also: I'm not sure if I should be offended by the "Are you?" comment. Yes, I am a member of a minority that is often treated poorly. No, I don't think it makes me better than any other woman (or man!). I'm also not sure why you asked, would my opinion be less valid if I weren't trans? Equality is a beautiful idea, making distinctions is counter productive.
Quote from: AlwaysLauren on October 08, 2007, 09:52:24 PM
I think we need to make sure law enforcement officials follow the rules on the books.
In this, we are in total agreement. Who will do it? The Feds? Hey that's a good idea! Let's do that instead. Hmm... I wonder what we would need to do to get that ball rolling. ;)
Cindi
In certian places Rape is only commited if its a MAN forcing a nonconcenting WOMAN...
Where does that leave us? and where does that leave so many other people... we need a hatecrimes bill if for no other reason than to afford leagle protections to those in states where they have none.
I am very heartfelt in this paticular subject. Thankyou and good night.
Wouldn't it make sense to have fewer restrictions on the definition? Say, define rape as a PERSON forcing a nonconsenting PERSON. Don't have a separate "rape", "trans rape", "homosexual rape", etc.
I understand being heartfelt on this. I think we all agree on what the goal should be, we just prefer different ways of achieving it. Please please don't take any of this as an attack, I realize this is an emotional topic, and I really don't want to get into an emotional fight.
It would make sence, but its not going to happen with out federal intervention... and if that means having to use a hatecrime bill to do it, so be it... any progress in the matter is better than none...
Id like to see people go to jail for the crimes they have comitted instead of being able to simply walk away free with a smirk on there face...
Conservatives are for small or no government, right?
Let's shrink the military and cut back 'defense' spending -- no!?
Let's cut back on the portion of the courts that deal with businesses and corporations (over 90% of our court-bound tax dollars cover that,) -- no!?
Well, what can we cut to bring down givernment spending? Social programs? Social Programs!! Those deadbeats don't deserve safety, security, or freedom from want anyway!
My point is, it's going to take the federal government to protect our tiny, reviled minority in all fifty states and four trust territories from the 1400-pound gorillas of the fundamentalist networks who hate us and see us as undermining their god-mandated morality.
Either that, or we're going to have TG refugees leaving the more embattled zones (if they're smart,) and ending up in the more hospitable territories of the U S and A.
Karen